[From Fred Nickols (2014.03.30.0843 EDT)]
Boris:
I see you've already apologized for this blast but I thought I would add a
comment anyway. I can't recall ever being insulted by Rick. I've seen some
posts of his that could be taken that way but never any aimed at me.
As for his "crown prince" status, it's a dirty job but someone has to do it.
Fred (Slow Learner) Nickols
From: Boris Hartman [mailto:boris.hartman@masicom.net]
Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2014 3:35 AM
To: 'Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)'
Subject: RE: Cannot Control Output
Hi Rick
RM:
It's understandable that people learning PCT would have trouble
understanding this (that it's perception, not externally visible behavior,
that
is controlled). In order to understand it one has to know 1) what control
_is_,
how control works, how control differs from cause and how a hierarchical
control organization works. So you've got to keep people's attention long
enough to teach them these things. My experience is that it takes people
at
least three years to understand PCT (if they are willing to try to
understand it;
much longer, if ever, if they are not) so you can't really expect people
to
understand the fact that all behavior -- even behavior that looks like
emitted
action -- is controlled perception after one or two runs of the rubber
band
demo. You have to keep their attention for at least three years (unless
they
have the computer skills of Adam Matic, who apparently violates my three
year rule; I think Adam got the basics of PCT down in about three weeks!)
HB :
Do you really have no better work to do, than insult people on CSGnet.
After
Martin and Bruce and Fred, and I don't know excatly how many others, you
"dive straight" at Adam. What's this time ? He is not thinking like you
want
him to think. Or your "majesty Princ" starts to think that you are the
"reference" for PCT knowledge ? Remember how many mistakes did you
make, when you were learning PCT.
Let people enjoy conversating and exploring. People brain doesn't work as
computer. So you can't program it, to do what you want it to do. Brains
are
creative, reorganizible and that's the "prior" way of learning. Think of
what
reorganization is. Mostly neurons seek for new connections all the time.
That
is natural working, and I suppose you will not change that with childish
attempts of control. You have to be aware of that you are control system
too, and what ever you do, are attempts to reach your goals. And Adam is
trying to reach his. So it would be nice if you'll help him if you can
(that's how
people also advance and improve themselves) , if you can't help,
then........
Best,
Boris
From: Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)
[mailto:CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU] On Behalf Of Richard Marken
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2014 8:58 PM
To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU
Subject: Re: Cannot Control Output
[From Rick Marken (2014.03.28.1255)]
>WM: I agree generally with people that there are problems with how
behaviour is defined. But that may not be the main problem with people's'
acceptance. Even when we clearly define what we call behaviour for the
sake
of demonstration - the movement of the pen trace on the white board
during the rubber band demonstration - then 99% of viewers still think
that
this behaviour is being controlled ('she's doing the opposite of you!')
when
actually it is the knot on the dot that is being controlled. If anything,
this
behaviour is being controlled by the environmental disturbance, but only
because the person is focusing on controlling the knot over the dot!
RM: But the pen trace is being controlled, isn't it? If you pull
(lightly) on the person's hand (with the pen in it) in the rubber band
demo
this pull will be resisted. The pen position is controlled but in varying
locations
to compensate for the experimenter's pull on the other end of the rubber
band.
RM: I've run into this same objection before when teaching PCT -- the
student who objects to the idea that it is the position of the knot and
not the
position of the finger in the rubber band, that is controlled in the
rubber
band demo -- and found myself blubbering and at a loss to give a nice,
clear
answer. Because the position of the finger is controlled in the rubber
band
demo. The problem, of course, is that control is hierarchical: we control
pen
position as the means of controlling the position of the knot. But getting
into
that when introducing PCT is way too complicated.
RM: So I no longer talk about the pen (or finger) movements in the rubber
band demo not being controlled , because this is only true from the point
of
view of the system controlling the position of the knot.
I think the main thing to get across is that what is always controlled in
any
example of behavior is a perception, even in the case of a behavior that
appears to be an emitted output. So I would use the pen (or finger)
movements as examples of behaviors that look like emitted outputs but are,
in fact, controlled perceptions. The fact that it is perception that is
controlled
can be illustrated in the way I suggested earlier. Just have the subject
close
his or her eyes and become aware of the proprioceptive/kinestetic
perceptions (the feelings in the arm and hand that you when you move your
hand) that subject is producing for themselves (controlling) when the pen
(or
finger) is being moved. Perhaps ask them to imagine how hard (or
impossible) it would be to do this task if their arm/hand were
anesthetized
and they couldn't experience those proprioceptive/kinestetic feelings.
> WM: So there seems to be some assumption that the actions we see are,
> and
should, be controlled. What would it mean if all of a person's behaviour
is not
under their own control?
RM: Of course, the actions we see are controlled; but what we control are
not the visible actions themselves (unless we are looking in a mirror or
at our
limbs while we are producing the actions) but the
proprioceptive/kinestetic
perceptions of muscle tension, length, etc that, when brought to varying
reference states, result in what an observer sees as actions, outputs or
behaviors.
RM: It's understandable that people learning PCT would have trouble
understanding this (that it's perception, not externally visible behavior,
that
is controlled). In order to understand it one has to know 1) what control
_is_,
how control works, how control differs from cause and how a hierarchical
control organization works. So you've got to keep people's attention long
enough to teach them these things. My experience is that it takes people
at
least three years to understand PCT (if they are willing to try to
understand it;
much longer, if ever, if they are not) so you can't really expect people
to
understand the fact that all behavior -- even behavior that looks like
emitted
action -- is controlled perception after one or two runs of the rubber
band
demo. You have to keep their attention for at least three years (unless
they
have the computer skills of Adam Matic, who apparently violates my three
year rule; I think Adam got the basics of PCT down in about three weeks!)
RM: So be patient but do keep trying to thinking of ways to help people
understand PCT. Never give up. The future of humankind is at stake!
Best
Rick
> Warren
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>>
>> [From Rick Marken (2014.03.27.1020)]
>>
>>> Fred Nickols (2014.03.27.0704 EDT)
>>
>>> FN: I'm picking up on a comment made by Martin in the Why PCT?
>>> thread;
namely,
>>> that in PCT a system doesn't control its output.
>>
>> RM: You've already gotten excellent replies from Warren, Martin and
>> Kenny. I'll just throw in my 2 cents which, I hope, will not be too
>> redundant with what has already been said. I'll answer it in terms
>> of your nice example of taking a sip of coffee:
>>
>>> FN: Sitting next to me on my workstation is a thermal cup of coffee.
>>> I
take a
>>> sip now and then, which involves grasping the cup, raising it to my
lips,
>>> tilting it and sipping the coffee that comes out. I understand that
>>> I'm controlling several variables but it seems to me that some of
>>> them
involve
>>> my hand and arm. Grasping the cup and moving my arm are instances
>>> of "output" are they not?
>>
>> RM: They look like outputs from the point of view of an observer
>> (which includes you, when you watch your own hand grasp and lift the
>> cup). But if you close your eyes and make a grasping movement with
>> your hand I think you will see that what you are doing is creating a
>> perception for yourself; a feeling (consisting of proprioceptive and
>> kinesthetic perceptions) of a hand configuration that you call
>> "grasp".
>>
>> RM: Another way to demonstrate the fact that you are always
>> controlling perceptions when you are controlling "outputs" is to try
>> to try to grasp an object without perceiving the grasp. That is,
>> just "will" a grasp output and see what happens. When I do this,
>> nothing happens at all. Willing a grasp, for me, is willing a
>> feeling (a perception).
>>
>> RM: I think there are two main reasons why people have a hard time
>> getting the idea that control always involves the control of
>> perception, not output. One reason is the conflation of control with
>> consciousness. When we do things like take a sip of coffee we are
>> usually unconscious of the kinesthetic and proprioceptive perceptions
>> we control as the means of producing this higher level perception.
>> And when we are not conscious of perceptions -- especially
>> perceptions of "motor output" -- we assume that perception is not
>> involved in behavior. My little exercise above is aimed at overcoming
>> this "consciousness" problem; when you direct you consciousness to
>> the kinesthetic and proprioceptive perceptions controlled when
>> producing "motor outputs" you realize that you are producing desired
>> perceptions, not outputs.
>>
>> RM: Another reason for the problem of understanding that "output" is
>> a controlled perception is the "viewpoint" problem that Martin
>> mentioned in his answer to the "Why PCT" thread. Control engineers
>> think of (and refer to) the variable controlled by a control system as
its
"output".
>> This is the way it looks from a viewpoint that is "outside" the
>> control system. And it's the way it looks to you as an observer of
>> behavior (including your own). This point of view is fine for the
>> person building a control system because the goal is to produce a
>> system that controls the "output" variable and controls it well. But
>> this is the wrong point of view for the person who wants to
>> understand how an existing control system works. For that person, the
>> correct viewpoint is from the perspective of the system itself -- the
>> PCT perspective on control -- and from that viewpoint the "outputs"
>> of a system are controlled perceptions.
>>
>>> FN: I ask because it seems to me that millions upon millions of
>>> people
will have
>>> a hard time digesting the assertion that they do not control their
>>> own movements. Are there not reference conditions for grasping,
>>> raising and tilting?
>>
>> RM: We'll just have to find ways to help them understand -- perhaps
>> using simple demos like the one I described above -- that grasping,
>> raising the arm and tilting the hand are outputs from the point of
>> view of people watching those activities but perceptions from the
>> point of view of the person doing them.
>>
>> Best
>>
>> Rick
>>
>>
>> --
>> Richard S. Marken PhD
>> www.mindreadings.com
>>
>> It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary
>> depends upon his not understanding it. -- Upton Sinclair
--
Richard S. Marken PhD
www.mindreadings.com
It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary
depends
···
-----Original Message-----
-----Original Message-----
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 2:03 PM, Warren Mansell <wmansell@gmail.com> > wrote:
>> On 27 Mar 2014, at 18:22, Richard Marken <rsmarken@GMAIL.COM> > wrote:
upon his not understanding it. -- Upton Sinclair
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2014.0.4354 / Virus Database: 3722/7262 - Release Date: 03/28/14
